In seeking to recover damages for breach of contract and wrongful termination, the plaintiff asserted that he had an implied contract of employment (rather than being a mere “at will” employee) because he had been assured “that [d]efendants would operate the firm, and that [p]laintiff would be permitted to perform his job responsibilities, in accordance with the prevailing laws, rules and regulation of the securities profession.” In a similar vein, he claimed that since the defendants had made clear that he would be terminated for violating any laws, the defendants thereby impliedly warranted that they would not fire him for upholding those same laws.

As you may have guessed, these arguments didn’t even make it out of the starting gate; the Court dismissed the complaint without even requiring the defendants to answer the complaint.

And the reason the Court did so is straightforward: not only did the plaintiff fail to overcome the presumption of employment at will, the plaintiff did not produce any writing that limited the defendant’s right to hire, fire, promote, demote, transfer or take any other employment action it deemed otherwise appropriate.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

In this case, the plaintiff, a former assistant treasurer of the defendant bank, claimed that she was fired as a direct result of her attempts to expose suspicious irregularities with respect to several trade confirmations that had come to her attention. Although she acknowledged that she was an at-will (as opposed to a contract) employee (for more information on the limited rights of at-will employees under New York law, see “Why Most Breach of Contract/Wrongful Termination Claims By At-Will Employees Are Doomed To Fail“), she alleged that the defendant’s own “Personnel Policies and Practices Manual promised to protect her from adverse action in connection with reporting suspicious activities,” and that this promise gave rise to a contractual obligation to protect her from retaliatory termination.

According to the Court, there are two problems that prove fatal to her claim, however. First, the Manual only protected against retaliatory action those who file a Suspicious Activities Report (SAR) – which the plaintiff never did. Second, the Manual also contained an explicit disclaimer that allowed them to terminate any at-will employee.

Thus, the implication of this decision is two-fold:

1. If you are an employee, make sure you read carefully your employment manual before you undertake any actions that might affect your job; and,
2. If you are the employer, make sure that your employment manual is appropriately drafted to protect your right to terminate at-will employees.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

But assuming you clear that first hurdle, there is a second question that may prove even more daunting: Did you have a contract, or were you an “at-will” employee? And the answer to this question is critical, because absent a written contract, the agreement “is presumed to be a hiring at will that may be freely terminated by either party at any time for any reason or even for no reason. Lobosco v. New York Telephone Co./NYNEX, 96 NY2d 312, 316 (2001). Furthermore, there is no exception for firings that violate public policy such as, for example, discharge for exposing an employer’s illegal activities, UNLESS the employee made its employer aware of an express written policy limiting the right of discharge and the employee detrimentally relied on that policy in accepting employment. See,  Weiner v. McGraw Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458 (1982).

As you might well surmise, this condition is rare indeed.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.